brendan at mozilla.org
Mon May 19 16:42:51 PDT 2008
On May 19, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
>> Not sure if lack of replies means I was unclear, but the above
>> number line
>> should help highlight an awkward truth: ES3.1 is a step sideways
>> (and in
>> some ways backward) for "JS" as represented by Mozilla's
>> (Rhino is tracking SpiderMonkey).
> Only "backward" if "more complex" is "forward" ;)
No, I mean "backward" in this sense: Mozilla's implementations have
had getters and setters since 1999 or so. Other minority share
browsers were forced to reverse-engineer them because Microsoft
live.com launched with user-agent testing that expected them in non-
IE browsers. This is old news, and backwards -- not progress, except
to catch IE up. Good for developers, for sure. Enough after nine
>> That's ok, standardizing post-hoc can be
>> good (making up new stuff for 3.1 is less clearly good in this
>> light -- more
>> work needed to uphold the ES3.1 < ES4 subset relation).
> But ES4 is also sideways in this sense. There's a bunch of stuff in
> Mozilla's JS1.8 that didn't make it into ES4.
Namely? As noted, some pieces are prototypes that will be adjusted to
match the ES4 type-based counterpart (the iteration protocol hook,
e.g.). What bunch of stuff is in 1.8 that did not make it into the
latest ES4 drafts?
> Also, there's a tremendous amount of stuff in ES4 that was never in
Except under the hood, off limits to programmers, reserved for the
built-ins and the DOM.
>> Since JS has evolved ahead of the standard since 1999 (and did
>> before then,
>> resulting in ES1 and ES2), a "JS3.1" does not make sense. Any
>> ES3.1 standard
>> would be folded into JS2 or possibly JS1.9 (the numbers are
>> decimals, so
>> 1.10, 1.11, etc. are possible too, but unlikely in my opinion).
> Glad to hear it's decimal. (Or at least binary floating point ;).) If
> ES4 does become known as JS2, then, taking up the "doubling"
> suggestion liorean mentioned, I suggest ES3.1 also be known as JS1.55.
> Its successor could then be JS1.57, etc...
I'm going to risk missing the joke and repeat that we wouldn't fold
any 3.1 into a distinct *JS* version number. This is a serious point,
since you proposed the unification of version number lines. Any ES3.1
that's a small upgrade to ES3 should not require a new JS version
number. With "no new syntax (apart from getters and setters)",
programmers should be able to object-detect new methods, not resort
to duplicative whole-script versioning. Right?
>> Separately from "JS3.1", my belief is that jumping from JS2 to JS4
>> is not
>> helpful to "half" the audience (not truly half; who knows? could
>> be by far
>> the majority, since "ECMAScript", .es suffix, etc. have not caught
>> on) who
>> think in terms of the JS1.x evolution, however much it might help
>> focused on the ES numbers.
> Surely you don't mean to suggest that ES4 represents a small
> evolutionary step beyond JS1.8? Wouldn't a larger increment be less
Larger than what? 0.2? The numbers are decimal tuples, so 2 - 1.8 is
arbitrarily large in the second place. We don't know until we get
there. The main point is to have a total order, not to "market" (or
counter-market, in your case :-/) by fudging the gap to be small (or
More information about the Es4-discuss